________________
120
APPENDIX B.
beon cases in which widows gifted away their husbands' Property to charity or otherwise."
Thus there is a consensus of authority among the Jaino Law books going so far back in time as the 4th Century B. C. which period is at least one century older than the great Lex Hortensia (280 B. 0.} of the Romans--that at least 2 childless Jaina widow has the fullest rights orer her deceased husband's property.
The statement of Law in the Jaiva books is thus corroborated by an unprejudiced consideration of Hindu Law. It is supported by judicial decisions also. Only three of the decisions which seem to be directly in point may be considered. The earliest, of course, is the case of Musommat Daklo, in I. L., R. 1 All., p. 688. At page 704 we read:
"A Jaina sonless widow takes an absolute interest, at least in the self-acquired property of her husband.”
The cautions qualification implied in the use of the phrase "at least" is not surprising. Four pages earlier, tre read :
“The Jainas have no written law of inheritance. Their lav on the subject can be ascertained only by investigating the castoms which prevail among thom."
The Lar books citod before mo were unfortunately not * produced before the Allahabad High Court. Otherwise, they would have never said. "The Jainas have no written Lat of inheritance." And, without much fear of merely expressing a speculative opinion, I think, that the qualifying words " at least" might not have been used by their Lordships in their finding as to the rights of a Jaina sonless widow, if they had had the advantage of having before them the ancient and . authoritative Jaina Law books, which are produced before me.
But the case of Musammat Dakho is a certain and early authority that the estate of a Jaina childless widow is different and more than that of a Hindu widow. The question is merely
